It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Careful With Disinfo Accusations.

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+4 more 
posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   
The following is my opinion, please take it as such.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's obvious by now that no terrorists did 911...

So now people know this and they are trying to figure out how it was done.

When someone introduces a theory in the realm of 911 being an inside job, people will call them disinfo if they don't agree with the theory...

This is getting ridiculous to say the least. Why can't people be open to all possibilities on how 911 was done. There are multiple evidence that suggests all kinds of theories so how can a theory be a disinfo?

The disinfo is the official story, that's about as far as disinfo can go...

You can't have disinfo if the theory is still saying 911 was an inside job. All theories on how 911 was done are speculations at this point so how is it possible to single out a theory and stamp it disinfo? It can't...

Disinfo's purpose is to hide who did the crime to the population, not say that 911 was an inside job but hide how it was done. That's like admitting to a crime but tell the police that you used a sword instead of a knife...

Simply, you can't have a disinfo if the theory still says that 911 was an inside job because the purpose of disinfo is to sway the populations that 911 was done by terrorists. Any theories that suggests inside job no matter what the claim on how it was achieved is the resulting manifestation of individuals who are doing research and putting up theories on how it was done.

These are not disinfo, but speculations and researching...

I'm not with the government and i could come up with a theory right now on how 911 was done and tell others about it.Someone might say that i am a disinfo agent but yet all i did was theorize on possibilities of methods that 911 was created and not be a disinfo agent at all...

Be careful with these disinfo accusations... The accusations them selves might be the resulting end of awareness on 911, not the actual theories that were stamped disinfo......

[edit on 3-6-2007 by selfless]




posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 04:49 PM
link   
There are people, we've all read some of their ramblings, who for their own reasons take pleasure in perpetuating crazy theories that have been disproved / debunked to death.

Sometimes its presented in a very good way - others it is so see through it is obvious that the poster doesn't believe the words they are typing. These are the 'disinfo kiddies' (like script kiddies) and they deserve a collective spanking from the CT collective



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   
I agree.

This so called 911 truth movement has gotten so out of control as far as the bickering and arguments that WE ALL have failed to realize the bigger picture. I think we need to spend our time researching other events our Government has done under the guise of "Black Ops" and combine our knowledge into one simple explanation as far as the BIG PLAN OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER these people want to impose on every country on earth.

We have the bsregisteration guy coming on now with his theory basically saying everyone is a disinfo agent, even posters on this forum, just because they dont believe in his theory. But on the other hand, shouldnt we label him the same way because he doesnt believe in MY THEORY, OR LOOSE CHANGES THEORY???? I dont really care who has the correct theory because my focus is on the BIG PICTURE.

We need to identify WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHY, WHERE, AND THE HOW. When its all said and done these EVENTS whether its 911, The Federal Reserve being created in 1913, The Gulf of Tonkin incident, ect. all have the same effect, GETTING US READY AND CONDITIONED FOR THE NWO.

As soon as we can all rise up as one voice instead of creating distractions within whatever movement you are a part of than we ALL HAVE LOST. We need to understand this before its too late.

As a side note, as soon as we start LABELING EVERYBODY than we start creating GROUPS. Each group starts blindly believing whatever there group tells them and it all goes downhill from there. Quite labeling everything and just understand we need to be ONE VOICE FOR CHANGE. That is why I am voting for Ron Paul, because we finally have ONE VOICE FOR CHANGE that we all can get behind, even if you believe Thermite took down the buildings or Holographic planes were flown into the buildings or 4th Generation Nukes took them out.... does it really matter in the long run????



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Thank you people, for your inputs.



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Just time for a quick word now, Selfless, as I'm sure I was one of the members you had in mind, whose disinfo allegations just got more zany...
I agree we should be careful and avoid infighting when possible.
Disinformation = consciously and strategically incorrect information
It's misinfo but on purpose. Misinfo abouds, and it seems some of it's gotta be DISinfo.
I will explain better later...



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   
So you think that they put far fetched theories in the eyes of the mainstream public so that if someone looks into 911 they see a theory they consider to be far fetch and think all people who thinks 911 was an inside job thinks the far fetched theory is correct?

So you think they want to discredit the opinion that 911 was an inside job by going to extremes in demonstrating that 911 was an inside job so that people don't believe it?

You have to be blinded to think that the people who thinks 911 was an inside job consists only of people who believes one theory only... (not saying you are blinded caustic, only speaking in general towards my point here.)

The point is, the subject of 911 is extremely subjective and subjectivity dictates a vast array of opinions... it's inevitable because nothing is confirmed about 911, it's all speculations...

Speculations = theories = research = opinions = subjective = individual opinions = mis labeled dis info agents.

The truth movement is not a dis info movement... it's a highly open minded subject matter that requires infinite theories and speculations as a result of not being satisfied with the official story.

Truth is, people will continue to bring forward new theories and opinions as more people interprets the evidences differently in their individual minds, Doesn't mean they have dis info purposes.

As far as I'm concerned, the dis info lies in the realm of the official story.



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   
I know a few of my posts lately have been less than contributory to any particular investigation, but my line has always been "prove it".


If a theory has no proof, I'll decide what it is later, but it isn't fact now.

If you have something substantial to back up your claim, and that it checks out, I'd say it was pretty likely that it was correct.

I think it is also important to look at what isn't mentioned. Whilst someone is trying to draw my attention to this piece piece of mis/dis-info over there, what aren't I looking at? Flight 93 is a good example of that. The official photo of the debunked smoke. Whist I'm looking at the smoke, believing it to be real because the FBI said so, I'm not looking at the hole in the ground.



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Good arguements but it really hinges in the belief, speculation, deduced conclusion that it was an inside job not the possibility that the government honestly dropped the ball by incompetence, disbelief or even unable to act in time with incomplete information in reguards to warnings from other governments.

An example would be if I said to you that someone you know is about to be killed by a republican in the near future based on something I heard. Now if a friend of a roomate that you met once or twice was killed by a guy that voted for Bob Dole in 1996, then I gave you accurate information. If I go public about it then maybe someone would say you were complicit, negligent or even conspired to allow it because you thought the guy was a jerk.

When critically looking at anything, having a theory of what the outcome is and dismissing anything counter to that theory is like the pharma-companies that don't report dangerous side effects obsevered in a drug study as "too low of incidence to be of statisitical value" and then burying those results to get the drug to the public.

In the end an agreement will have to be made that .9 repeating equals 1 despite the infinately miniscule difference. But the fact cannot be dismissed that no number divided by another number equals .9 repeating. But using .78654 as close enough to .9 repeating to include it as evidence for 1 is where many conspiracy theories of 9/11 fall apart. Unfortunately too many supports of .78 will say .78654 is good enough and the propagation of poor evidence continues to delute the Truth Movement.

Flattly stating and dismissing ideas that counter "no terrorists involved" or "inside job" is akin to being a .78 supporter in the grand mystery of 9/11. Making 9/11 as nothing but a scene in NWO, NAU, Bush dictatorship, Zionist global plot, Reptilian overthrow, or any other larger plot in presenting an idea on 9/11 only serves to dilute the groundwork causing it to be dismissed out of hand as the ravings of a lunatic to John Q Public that heard the official story and said "sounds good enough to me" and got on with their lives. Think of that as the old adage of history being written by the victors.

I even started a thread as a "What if" question that 9/11, anomolies and all was a PSYOPS experiment to clearly identify leaders and followers of dissident ideology in America. The two responses have been promotion of a claim that it was a ceremony to open a stargate and that everything seen on TV was from a military feed of special effects...ie "no plane" theory. Granted it is larger question of why then the needed how that is not needed, but so far most debunking of CT has only served to strengthen the arguement of the official story.

I state it clearly in my sig, but searching for a plausible "truth" should abandoned to research hard irrefutable facts. Only then can a real story be presented that will be widely accepted. There will always be people that will debunk that story on the far sides of debate. But until then the Official Story only gains strength of validity over time. Much like JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald.



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Ahabstar,

Do you believe the official story?

PS: I'm having a hard time reading your sentences, the way they are put together.

Maybe it's because I am not English.



[edit on 3-6-2007 by selfless]



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 09:44 PM
link   
I always thought a Theory was something that needed to be proven to be regarded as fact. The only FACT we know of is from the Government with the 911 commission report. Most of the people at first thought 911 was NOT an inside job and was orchestrated by THE EVIL TERRORISTS. When people started questioning the 911 commission report MANY THEORIES came to the forefront as MORE AND MORE information was coming. I am not Scientist but the way I understand it is a Scientist uses evidence to Prove their Theory. When their theory is proven it becomes a fact. Weird huh.

I think different theories need to be brought to the forefront because at some point we should have enough evidence of some sort to prove someones theory. Sometimes we dont need to PROVE everything but just have enough evidence to prove the theory. It may not have ALL the evidence but there will be enough to make a educational and logical guess which has enough evidence to back it up to consider it proven.

As long as we still have free discussion to form our theory's and have a way to prove them than there should be no problem WITH ANYONES THEORY. We need NOT be so Defensive of our positions on ANY topic as to disregard any Logical input from someone else. It seems as soon as anyone tries to bring up an alternative view or some evidence to back up or discredit someones Theory the DEFENSIVE flood gates open and nothing gets accomplished.

This IS THE TRUE sadness of this to me is that NOTHING IS GETTING ACCOMPLISHED. We all sit here and start wondering which theory is right when there is NOT A LOGICAL way to PROVE ANYONES THEORY as ONLY THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE ACCESS TO THE FULL EVIDENCE. Until the time comes where we are able to have access to all the evidence NO ONES THEORY IS CORRECT. We can only make THEORETICAL GUESSES on which theory best represents what we personally FEEL.



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Good arguements but it really hinges in the belief, speculation, deduced conclusion that it was an inside job not the possibility that the government honestly dropped the ball by incompetence, disbelief or even unable to act in time with incomplete information in reguards to warnings from other governments.


Naw. There is no realistic possibility that ‘terrorists’ rigged WTC-7 for demolition. So, 9-11 HAS to have been an inside job. No ifs, whens and buts. All that’s left to argue about is how it was done.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by selfless
Ahabstar,

Do you believe the official story?

PS: I'm having a hard time reading your sentences, the way they are put together.

Maybe it's because I am not English.

[edit on 3-6-2007 by selfless]


The Official Story is Theory. It does have facts such as there are people in this world that hate the US enough to do this. I do feel that America was attacked. I feel that many reports in the intial confusion have been used poorly as evidence to theories that depend too deeply on them. One such report was a white truck on --- bridge (name eludes me at the moment) that was a car bomb. There was a report of a car bomb going off outside the Capitol Building in DC. I have heard the white truck in the bridge in some theories, of course the exploded car bomb outside the Capitol did not happen.

I am a poor typist and often I am guilty of omitting words. Sometimes my string of thought is faster than my typing as well. I will try to keep in mind that English is not everyones first language. I know a little Spanish and German, but can not read a newspaper in either due to my limited vocabulary. Thank you for pointing that out.

--Wizard In The Woods--
That is a nice example of a leap in logic. What if WTC7 was a natural collapse from debris. If it was not a CD, then does that mean it was not an inside job? Neither version depends on terrorist entering. Both versions allow for inside job. Your example requires CD and needs a way for it to be done. It also requires motive to be destroyed as opposed to being just an accident.



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Sorry so late...


Originally posted by selfless
The following is my opinion, please take it as such.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's obvious by now that no terrorists did 911...

So now people know this and they are trying to figure out how it was done.

When someone introduces a theory in the realm of 911 being an inside job, people will call them disinfo if they don't agree with the theory...

This is getting ridiculous to say the least. Why can't people be open to all possibilities on how 911 was done. There are multiple evidence that suggests all kinds of theories so how can a theory be a disinfo?


I admit my first instinct is to counter your opinion that it's "obvious" 9/11 was an inside job (I find it higly likely), but I'm respecting your opinions, and these, along with general theories, are in a realm beyond disinfo. You're right there. We each chose our own path. Even if that pth is to not choose your own path and follow instead. There's no right way to think, no right way to believe.

But there is a rational way.
It's when we get into facts, or things claiming to be facts, like when used to BACK a theory, that we're dealing in information, the value of which is supposed to be in its description of the real world. When such info can be shown or strongly illustrated to conflict with reality rather than describe it, we must start considering puttin a "mis" in front of it. The dis of course is harder to read, being in the intentionality and strategy behind it. It's often impossible to prove, whether from a gov. agency or a hard truther, but there are times when enough evidence accrues that we should consider the possibility of deliberate disinformation operaations.


The disinfo is the official story, that's about as far as disinfo can go...

Correct IMO as well, except for the "the" implying this is the only source of relevant disinfo. But it counts for sure - facts that are wrong (tho more eften omitted or treated more subtly), purposeful (tho most involved BELIEVE they're telling the truth), and strategic (tho who exactly is directing the strategy is unclear). The purpose:ti turn a preventable and possibly inside-engineered "catalyzing event" to go down as just that, with the trajectory of the "War on Terror" built right into the evidence. It would look real IMO, and to some extent probably was, which is why I have a hard time with the "hard proof in plane site" crowd and those who seek to "loose the change" based on a mulching of this evidence (which is neither entirely right nor entirely wrong).


You can't have disinfo if the theory is still saying 911 was an inside job.

Again, there is no disinfo theory, but there is disinfo evidence - say two are mutually exclusive theories, both claiming inside job but one must be incorrect at least, and the info spun to support it becomes "missed" or possibly "dissed" if we're honest. Until we can sort out which is true, of course we can't point a finger and say "that's misinfo," or begin to speculate, as intelligent people should have asked on 9/11, did they screw up so bad on purpose?


All theories on how 911 was done are speculations at this point so how is it possible to single out a theory and stamp it disinfo? It can't...

Disinfo's purpose is to hide who did the crime to the population, not say that 911 was an inside job but hide how it was done. That's like admitting to a crime but tell the police that you used a sword instead of a knife...


Or have someone else tell the cops that for you, but a knife was found at the scene and the wound matched... they'd dismiss the sword guy as crazy, apologize for the hoax, and drop the case. Well, not for you or me, but it's sure worth a try. If that's what's happening here, it's working for them so far... How is that new official investigation going that'll have subpoena powers and the ability to prosecute?


Simply, you can't have a disinfo if the theory still says that 911 was an inside job because the purpose of disinfo is to sway the populations that 911 was done by terrorists. Any theories that suggests inside job no matter what the claim on how it was achieved is the resulting manifestation of individuals who are doing research and putting up theories on how it was done.


Can you really vouch for the accuracy of 100% of their info, and for the true intentions of every one of these noble researchers? Remember I'm one of 'em to, though I have got more on this "infighting" tangent - but by my understanding of the word anyway, this stance makes no sense.

Your thread is titled "careful with disinfo accusations," which is reasonable enough. But in reality you seem to be saying here that, BY DEFINITION, no such thing as disinfo from within the movement exists. With all due respect, that's a pretty silly thing to say. Or am I misreading?

So for the record, supposing strategic, malevolant, black ops disinfo from someone describing themselves as a truther was indeed possible, should we confront it and correct the record, or ignore it since it's "friendly fire?" Again, hypothetically speaking...

It's all in the details.



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by selfless
It's obvious by now that no terrorists did 911...

No. It's obvious that it was indeed radical Islamic fundamentalist
terrorists who were the 9/11 hijackers of four airplanes that were
turned into weapons of mass destruction. It's obvious by now that
UBL did indeed have a major hand in this .. he even admitted to it
in the tape.


Originally posted by Ahabstar
The Official Story is Theory.

The official story is fact. No one has proven anything otherwise.


I agree with the TITLE of this thread - be careful with disinfo accusations.
Other than that ... you people are welcome to your opinions




[edit on 6/4/2007 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 07:58 AM
link   
selfless

I'm having a hard time understanding your basic premise. It seems contradictory to me.

First you say

It's obvious by now that no terrorists did 911...


Which, by itself is dangerous because it sets up an outcome that you will now have to force your facts to fit into. But it is contradictory when you say later on


All theories on how 911 was done are speculations at this point so how is it possible to single out a theory and stamp it disinfo? It can't...


So, if all 9/11 theories are speculation, then how can you say that the terrorist theory is disinfo?

Do you see what I mean?



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by selfless
The following is my opinion, please take it as such.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's obvious by now that no terrorists did 911...

My Thoughts - How so ? I believe the exact OPPOSITE ..

So now people know this and they are trying to figure out how it was done.

My Thoughts - It was done by 19 pissed off zealots .

When someone introduces a theory in the realm of 911 being an inside job, people will call them disinfo if they don't agree with the theory...

My Thoughts -Completely Untrue .. their just wrong

This is getting ridiculous to say the least. Why can't people be open to all possibilities on how 911 was done. There are multiple evidence that suggests all kinds of theories so how can a theory be a disinfo?

My Thoughts - Im open to the idea , I just believe my eyes and my eyes
tell me that the towers gave way at the impact site on both buildings .

Disinformation is just that , disinformation . The only disinformation about 911 is that the truth virus's taking almost all statements and listening to sound bytes and taking it as fact , not caring to listen to the whole sentence or paragraph . And drawing conclusions from that .



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by selfless
The following is my opinion, please take it as such.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's obvious by now that no terrorists did 911...

So now people know this and they are trying to figure out how it was done.

When someone introduces a theory in the realm of 911 being an inside job, people will call them disinfo if they don't agree with the theory...

This is getting ridiculous to say the least. Why can't people be open to all possibilities on how 911 was done. There are multiple evidence that suggests all kinds of theories so how can a theory be a disinfo?

The disinfo is the official story, that's about as far as disinfo can go...

You can't have disinfo if the theory is still saying 911 was an inside job. All theories on how 911 was done are speculations at this point so how is it possible to single out a theory and stamp it disinfo? It can't...

Disinfo's purpose is to hide who did the crime to the population, not say that 911 was an inside job but hide how it was done. That's like admitting to a crime but tell the police that you used a sword instead of a knife...

Simply, you can't have a disinfo if the theory still says that 911 was an inside job because the purpose of disinfo is to sway the populations that 911 was done by terrorists. Any theories that suggests inside job no matter what the claim on how it was achieved is the resulting manifestation of individuals who are doing research and putting up theories on how it was done.

These are not disinfo, but speculations and researching...

I'm not with the government and i could come up with a theory right now on how 911 was done and tell others about it.Someone might say that i am a disinfo agent but yet all i did was theorize on possibilities of methods that 911 was created and not be a disinfo agent at all...

Be careful with these disinfo accusations... The accusations them selves might be the resulting end of awareness on 911, not the actual theories that were stamped disinfo......

[edit on 3-6-2007 by selfless]


Disinfo and allegations of government complicity in 9/11 are not mutually exclusive. In fact, most disinfo, in my personal experience, is masquerading
as a conspiracy theory! This technique is known as "poisoning the well". The methodology of this technique is to put forth a weak and unbelievable theory with no hard evidence supporting it, for example the theory that space weapons were used on the WTC, in a deliberate attempt to damage the credibility of legitimate researchers. The hoped-for result looks something like this: Joe American reads a really stupid theory about 9/11 on the internet posted by a disinfo agent. He thinks to himself "Wow, these 9/11 Truth types are really unhinged". Therefore, he decides to not waste anymore of his time reading alternative theories about 9/11. In my opinion, anyone who offers a theory about 9/11 or anything else who can't offer credible evidence to support is most likely deliberately propogating disinfo.



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Disinformation = consciously and strategically incorrect information
It's misinfo but on purpose. Misinfo abouds, and it seems some of it's gotta be DISinfo.
I will explain better later...


Allow me, to clarify, it is not a problem. Please see below quoted for definitions of.



disinformation=
Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation:

misinformation=
To provide with incorrect information.


Not a big difference, how ever, one is intentional, and the other un- intentional.



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   
selfless


disinfo is the official story, that's about as far as disinfo can go...



Your whole premise is flawed. Your basically saying nothing is disinfo unless of course its the official story!

The same reasoing many of us use to proclaim that the official story is disinfo is the same reasoning we use to proclaim 'CGI' is disinfo. I am not going to be careful at all with that. That is purely in the face of what is obvious.

I feel the people who talk about CGI on 9/11 use deliberate deception similar to when some people try and HOAX UFO footage.

I see, delibrate ignorance of rational explanations of viewing angles and other readily explainable phenomena.

The reason I say that both the official story and the CGI cartoon theory are *BOTH* disinfo is because they both have a problem with something we all know to well........REALITY.

For CGI on 9/11 to be true, that would mean every single camera man from the news crews would be in on it, which is plainly ludicrous.

That every single witness in a populated city such as New York would be lying. Which already I have see people from this cartoon side label people on this board. They don't believe anyone who says they seen the plane hit the buildings.

So yeah, that is disinfo. You have the right to call the official story disinfo.

I have the right to call CGI-cartoon effects on 9/11 disinfo as well.



[edit on 4-6-2007 by talisman]



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Your thread is titled "careful with disinfo accusations," which is reasonable enough. But in reality you seem to be saying here that, BY DEFINITION, no such thing as disinfo from within the movement exists. With all due respect, that's a pretty silly thing to say. Or am I misreading?


Well what i meant is,

If a person is open minded he will not limit him self to one theory only and so the dis info label resides on the person who perceives the information, not the information it self.

I see some people accuse other people of having dis info purpose as a result of not agreeing with the persons theory, i think that's a dangerous trend and turns finding truth into trying to be right.

People should not judge the 911 events based on the people who speaks about it, is what I'm saying.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join